How sad is this?

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Seriously, did they just pull people out of the checkout at Walmart and say, "Come act in a movie?" Are the directors or actors more to blame for the fact that everyone got Nicholas Cage Screaming Disease when it was time to try to show emotion? The lead bad guy would've been perfect for a struggling hockey coach. When they tried to make the mission look cosmopolitan, all they could think of to do was pull together a collection of atrocious accents. There can't be any spoilers, because nothing ever happened that you could reveal. The writing though, was the worst. It was aggressively, savagely horrible. It was in your face, fuck you audience tantalizingly abysmal. Katherine Tomlinson, Vincent Tran, and Riyaana Hartley should be sent on a one way mission to Mars without any way to contact Earth, so they take their horrible concepts, horrible writing and horrible execution with them into darkness never to be heard from again.

What is wrong with some of these viewers? This is FAR from being a bad movie! While not Oscar material it was still good and the acting was fine (a few of the extras were somewhat stilted but the main leads were good). It seems that every time an actor has an accent they get labeled as "bad" actors--- I have no major complaints about the film at all. I found the family relationships moving, and the storyline kept me engaged. There were no major inconsistencies in the storytelling either, nor was the music a problem.I have learned to distrust IMDb ratings but for the opposite reason from the complaints listed here. These "critics" are rating films way too low, just what are they comparing this with? There is plenty of room for the middle of the road film without needing to tear it down because it doesn't meet super blockbuster Hollywood budget standards. Science fiction seems to be a favorite target of these nay-sayers, probably because it takes so much money to do any special effects right and most science fiction movies have special effects (including this one). It's difficult to do it right on a limited budget. I liked the fact that this movie focused on the people, and their relationships without ignoring the science--all of the best sci=fi does. Ignore the extremely low reviews, this movie is worth watching.

I have just committed a cardinal sin. I read the reviews which all proclaimed this film to be absolutely pants - and the I watched it right to the end! Don't do what I did, take notice of the reviewers and don't waste your time. The acting(?) is absolutely diabolical - surely there will be no more roles for anyone after this? To put it briefly; there is a planned mission to Mars - no idea why really. The lead woman has a dying daughter, but she didn't appear to give a toss about her during the first half of the film, she just upped and left but later on it was all about 'I want to see my daughter'. We don't actually see them on Mars, just a rocket taking off and a caption saying '3 years later'. Incredibly the woman is the only survivor of a missile attack on re-entry. She is taken in by Gov officials for interrogation and is deemed a danger because she has now got some mind reading powers, so they decide to do away with her. So, should they send in a couple of 'heavies' into the cell to hold her whilst the doctor injects her with some deadly poison because she is such a risk? No frigging way - just send one guy in on his own so she can kick the crap out of him and escape. When she has escaped she gets visits from the other 'dead' crew members telling her that she has survived because she has an important message to tell the rest of the world. A lot of this is cryptic waffle - unfortunately I couldn't understand a word of the actress playing the part of the 'African(?)' woman so I don't know what she had to say. So now she's escaped and the Gov know she wants to get to see her child - what should we do? - send in a posse of agents to the home / hospital to kill her because she is such a danger and they did try to kill her when she was in interrogation? Not on your Nelly! Just send (2) guys - the boss man and an agent who happens to feel sorry for her. I can't say much about the ending because there wasn't one - No message to earth, to the 7 billion people living here or most annoyingly for me is for the people who watched this crap. Rant over, I'm going for a lie down.

I came across an article and trailer for this film while browsing the web looking for new indie sci-fi films and filmmakers, as I do. It was a *somewhat* catchy trailer, but I was more powerfully drawn to the film's glowing accolades, not only from the Huffington Post, but from the Godfather of Marvel himself (I'm a DC/Marvel geek)!That's right...on the OFFICIAL trailer itself, STAN LEE is quoted as calling this film "An edge of your seat mystery-thriller." Furthermore, according to the Huffington Post (via the trailer), "This is an invitation to us all to decide how to create the new epoch, the new human narrative." WOW! High praise. I would link the page, but I don't know of IMDb's policies on external links (hopefully nobody takes that trailer down after this post). The trailer clearly showed that this was an indie, budget, student-level film (which is perfectly fine), which made me all the more impressed by these words, and there was a superficial sheen upon everything, which drew my eye.I wanted to read more, so I "Googled", but apart from a number of secondary sources dropping his name, I could find no mention of the man himself having anything whatsoever to do with this production, or ever having said anything about it personally. I find this personal endorsement of his to be highly dubious (although I invite the filmmakers to prove otherwise). As for the Huffington Post article, well yes, there was an article - on the contributor platform! Anybody is allowed to post there - my twelve year old daughter could have been the author, lending just as much "Huffington Post" cachet! I even came across a PR release including both of these "endorsements".I left all of this with an eyebrow raised, to say the least, but decided in good faith to give it a shot, and rented it. Obviously, the film is not good. The filmmakers are clearly inexperienced. The storytelling mechanism, the core of any good film, is stilted and fragmented here, taking us one place, and then another, creating neither anticipation nor resolution at any stage. It doesn't feel natural, it doesn't flow, and it doesn't keep eyeballs on the screen. The technical side of the film doesn't do the story any favors, with clumsy, awkward camera work. The musical score isn't the worst, yet I doubt that even a bespoke Hans Zimmer soundtrack could have saved the day here. I won't say that the film is *entirely* devoid of charm: there are glimmers, but they are few and far between. The daughter did a fine job. There is substance behind some of the dialogue (often poorly delivered), but hearing these are like dots of green on a mostly barren landscape. No one can say that the filmmakers didn't come in with the best of intentions. Perhaps they tried to wrestle with a big idea, one which either they themselves don't understand...or lack the ability to translate into a cohesive, engaging story. No young filmmaker should be put down for having big ideas, and initially struggling to realize their grand vision. Such achievements often take time and repeated mistakes.But the dishonest marketing, the packaging of this as some sort of epic, groundbreaking feature film (complete with deceitful endorsements), troubles me. This is a student-level film, at best, and packaging it like this is like wearing cubic zirconium in a room full of jewelers...and telling everyone you're wearing a rare De Beers diamond! It doesn't feel tasteful - in fact, it feels downright tacky. If you're going to wear CZ...just rock it. Plenty of budget films do...with powerful results. Is this sort of fakery commonplace nowadays? Was it always? Should unscrupulous filmmakers not be called out on it? Moreover, I see from other reviewers that there may have been some evidence of spam voting. I hope that's not the case but if it is...the perpetrators ought to feel ashamed of themselves (but maybe every film crew does that on IMDb, I don't know). I noticed that this film is rated 95% (!) on RT. It's hard to reconcile that with what I watched, and what I now see here. Where there's smoke...?One poster here, who seems surely to be a member of the team (for who else would so vehemently defend the film?), points out (correctly) that throwing more money at a film does not make it better. Certainly, many brilliant short and full-length films are produced on low budget, sometimes with inexperienced filmmakers going on nothing but their fierce storytelling instincts. In fact, the industry is full of them. To the filmmakers, I'd say this: having a grand, noble idea isn't enough. You and a million other hungry filmmakers have grand, noble ideas. The quality of your filmmaking will set you apart, and to a large degree, the way in which you conduct your business and and PR affairs. To the first point: keep at it, I guess. You have much to learn. To the second: be careful how you represent yourself and your work to the public. Dishonesty has a way of repaying itself in this business (and anywhere in life, really).Welcome to Hollywood.